「漢語形容動詞連用形 ni＋動詞述語節」與「漢語名詞 de+動詞述語節」之比較研究—以「本気(ni)」「本気(de)」之用法為例—

<p>現代日語中，有些同時兼具形容動詞和名詞的漢語，除了可以使用「漢語形容動詞 ni(副詞形)+動詞述語節」外，也可以使用「漢語名詞 de+動詞述語節」之形式。到底甚麼樣的情況，應該用甚麼樣的形態來修飾動詞述語節呢?這確實是一項耐人尋味的問題。本稿中，以此課題為基本，使用「BCCWJ(中納言)」這項資料庫為分析資料，以「本気(ni)」「本気(de)」之用法為例，考察分析「漢語形容動詞（ni）＋動詞述語節」構造及「漢語名詞（de）＋動詞述語節」之構造，闡明兩者使用上之差異。</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>In contemporary Japanese, some Chinese (or Kango) includes both adjectival verbs and nouns. There are two forms that can be used to modify the predicative verb clauses, &ldquo;adjectival verb ni (adverbial form) + predicative verb clause&rdquo; and &ldquo;noun de(case marker) + predicative verb clause.&rdquo; The study aims to discuss this area with an intriguing question: Based on different situations, which form should we use to modify the predicative verb clauses? With the analysis of the Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese (BCCWJ-Chunagon) and the examples shown in this study, differences between the two forms can be fully investigated and explained. </p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Pathways to split ergativity

This paper reassesses the rise of ergative alignment in Anatolian and Indo-Aryan, two branches of the Indo-European linguistic family. Both of these branches acquire split-ergative morphosyntax in the course of their history but via different grammaticalization paths and with different results. In the Anatolian language Hittite, a denominative derivational suffix develops into an ergative case marker, which is restricted to so-called neuter nouns. In Indo-Aryan, on the other hand, a new ergative category with anterior aspectual semantics emerges in Middle Indo-Aryan originating from a P-oriented resultative construction in Old Indo-Aryan.

A Diachronic Perspective on the English Preposition TO and the Romanian Preposition LA

The paper discusses the different evolution of the English preposition (P) to and the Romanian P la “at/to” which can be observed in the history of English and Romanian ditransitives. In Modern English (ModE), the preposition to can occur in configurations with (i) ditransitive predicates and (b) unaccusative predicates. Within ditransitives, the English to only functions in the prepositional frame and it has a narrow distribution; the to-dative is a genuine Goal or a Recipient with certain verb classes. The first focus of this paper is to investigate the presence of the to-dative in Old English (OldE). The investigation will reveal that the to-dative construction was neither rare nor restricted, but already present in OldE. By way of contrast, Romanian la has a richer distribution (Possessor Goal, Beneficiary, Maleficiary and Source) and it has shifted from a case marker to a [Person] marker and it has moved in the direction of inflectional dative. The second focus of the paper is to investigate the presence of la in OldR. I will show that Romanian la evolved from the Latin P ad; diachronically, Romanian has kept the analytical marking of the Dative which is realized through the P la “at/to”.

Double argument marking in Timok dialect texts (in Balkan Slavic context)

Summary Idioms of the Torlak dialect (spoken in southeast Serbia and western Bulgaria) are known for their “double affiliation”. On the one hand, by virtue of their historical and phonetic features, they belong to the western range of the South Slavic dialectic continuum. On the other hand, according to their morphosyntactic characteristics (the presence of the post-positive article, the reduced case system, etc.), they adhere to the eastern range (i. e. Balkan Slavic). This paper views the innovative features of Torlak syntax from a strictly synchronic perspective and as a phenomenon of double (i. e. both head- and dependent-) argument marking. It is argued that cases of double argument marking in Torlak appear when several conditions are met. In order to be archaically marked with an overt relict case marker, a nominal group should either refer to the a-declension or, in case of the other declension types, assume a prominent position not only on the animacy scale but also on the scale of emotional involvement. In order to be innovatively indexed by a bound personal form (Haspelmath 2013), the argument should create the most favourable pragmatic and semantic conditions for the possible (optional) occurrence of argument indexing, i. e. be a derhematised and highly individualised Patient.

Headless Relative Clauses in Pesh

The aim of this study is to describe the two main kinds of headless relative clauses that are attested in Pesh, a Chibchan language spoken in Honduras: free relative clauses, which use a wh-word that functions as a relative pronoun at their left edge and a subordinator at their right edge, and headless relative clauses, which lack a wh- word but show a case marker or the topic marker at the right edge of the clause. The first type is less frequently attested in the natural corpus this study relies on, although the corpus does contain various instances of maximal, existential, and free-choice free relative clauses. Each of the constructions is distinguished by features of the wh-word and/or by certain restrictions regarding the tense of the verb in headless relative clauses or the type of verb in matrix clauses. The second type of headless relative clause, the ones that do not use a wh-expression, are much more frequent in the corpus and behave like headed relative clauses that lack a wh-expression. They are like noun phrases marked by a phrase-final case marker or the topic maker. The case or topic markers are used for light-headed relative clauses and for almost all types of maximal headless relative clause that have neither a light head nor a wh-expression, in contrast to maximal free relatives, in which only locative wh-words occur.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SHERPA AND NEPALI LANGUAGE ON THE BASIS OF CASE

Sherpa language spoken by Sherpas, the inhabitants of Himalayan region, falls on Tibeto-Burman language family. While comparing the case grammar of Sherpa language and Nepali language both have similarly types of case and case marker (Bibhakti). Sherpa Subjective case takes ki suffix as case marker and Nepali case takes [le]. Sherpa objective case takes la suffix as case marker and Nepali case takes [lai]. Instrumental case takes ki/gi] suffix as case marker in sherpa and Nepali case takes le/ ba;ta. Dative case take la: as case marker in Sherpa and Nepali case takes [lai]. Ablative case takes tja:su as case marker in Sherpa and Nepali case takes [ba:ta/ ᵭekhi]. Locative case takes la: as case marker in Sherpa and Nepali case takes [ma] and possessive case takes ki as case marker in Sherpa and Nepali case takes[ ro/ no/ ko]. Sherpa language and Nepali language are similar on the basis of case grammar study. The sentence structure in Sherpa language is different from Nepali language. There is no gender system in this language. Verbs are not changed on the basis of number either. SPECIAL WORDS: Tibeto-Burman, Sambhota Script, Kham, tan, Linguistic Universal.

From topic marker to case marker

The case model of the syncretic case [xa] in the Gansu-Qinghai area came from non-Sinitic languages, while the phonetic form came from Sinitic languages (“Sinitic languages” are usually called “Chinese dialects” in the Chinese linguistic community). The paper shows that this marker [xa] may come from a topic marker and topic chain markers in Sinitic languages. The accusative/dative marker formation was motivated by pragmatic factors. This phenomenon is also found in other languages. The syncretic use of cases is commonplace in languages across the world, whereas the accusative/dative marker [xa] is one of the prominent features in Sinitic languages in the Gansu-Qinghai area. The accusative/dative case formation did not know an even speed in Sinitic languages. It seems that Wutun and Tangwang evolved rapidly while Linxia and Gangou changed with an intermediate rhythm. Qinghai languages are the closest to Tibetic languages, but paradoxically they seem to be more conservative and do not adopt dative markers in possessor and experiencer constructions which are seen overwhelmingly in Tibetic languages. However, other Sinitic languages have adopted this marking progressively and steadily. The language model of the syncretic marker [xa] is not from a single language. Amdo Tibetan as well as Mongolic languages have contributed to the case formation of [xa] in Sinitic languages. This paper proposes that an Intertwining Model helped the spread of case formation in this zone. Languages of one group or of one language family have influenced each other at different periods. The results of case formation we note today constitute a net-like relationships connected to various languages, but not a neat and linear path.